Dismissed¶31

P.S.Nandakumar v. Union Bank Of India Limited

Madras HC19 Jan 2026WP/340/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; W.P.No.340 of 2026; decided 19.01.2026; M. Dhandapani, J.; P.S.Nandakumar v. United Bank of India Limited / Union Bank of India; gratuity; belated payment of gratuity; interest at 10% per annum on gratuity; terminal benefits settled with delay; representation dated 31.10.2025 rejected by communication dated 29.11.2025 (No.HR EBD;20110;2025); disputed question of fact; Article 226 writ jurisdiction; Certiorarified Mandamus; Payment of Gratuity Act authority; writ dismissed; no order as to costs; liberty to work out remedy in law.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs, with liberty granted to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law. ¶31

P.S.Nandakumar Vs Union Bank Of India Limited — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.01.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

W.P.No.340 of 2026

¶6

P.S.Nandakumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

United Bank of India Limited (CIN.U99999MH1919PTC000615) Rep. By its Authorised Signatory Having Central Office at Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 021.

¶9

The Chief Manager, Employee Benefits Division, Human Resource Department, Union Bank of India, Union Bank Bhavan, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400 021. ....Respondents

¶10

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶11

praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

records pertaining to the communication dated 29.11.2025 bearing No.HR

¶15

EBD;20110;2025 on the file fo the second respondent and quash the same as

¶16

illegal, unlawful, null, and void, and consequently, direct the respondents to

¶17

pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the maximum eligible gratuity

¶18

amount of the petitioner from 28.02.2023 till 24.09.2025.

¶19

For Petitioners : Mr.Anish Gopi

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the communication dated 29.11.2025 bearing No.HR EBD;20110;2025 on the file of the second respondent and consequently, direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the maximum eligible gratuity amount of the petitioner from 28.02.2023 till 24.09.2025.

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the employee of

¶22

the respondent bank and he was retired from service. After retirement, his terminal benefits was not settled and gratuity amount also settled with delay. However, interest for belated payment has not been settled to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 31.10.2025 to the _________ Page 2 of 5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

Managing Director, Union Bank of India and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.11.2025. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent has erroneously concluded that since the gratuity was paid within the prescribed time-limit . The delay in payment from 28.02.2023 to 24.09.2025 spans over two and a half years, for which, statutory interest is mandatory payable under the Act.

¶26

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

On perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner made a representation 31.10.2025 seeking interest on the belated payment for terminal benefits. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2025 on the ground that gratuity has been settled in time-line and therefore, there is no need to pay for interest. Since the issue arises in the

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

present writ petition is disputed question of fact, the same cannot be decided by this Court under 226 of Constitution of India. The petitioner has to approach only before the authority under Payment of Gratuity Act.

¶31

In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, liberty is grated to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

¶32

19.01.2026

¶33

rli NCC: Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No

¶34

¶35